get_coin_withdrawals

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It specifies that limit is 'up to 1000' and from_date format, but lacks details on pagination behavior (e.g., ordering, default offset, whether results are sorted) or read-only safety.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with 5 lines, no unnecessary words, and a clear argument list. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating description from args).

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the 4 parameters and existing output schema, the description covers input meaning adequately. It does not explain return values or pagination metadata, but the output schema handles the return structure. Minor gaps remain in pagination behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates. It explains all 4 parameters: currency with example, offset as pagination, limit with max, and from_date with format. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's types and defaults.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Get withdrawal history for a specific cryptocurrency.' This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_coin_withdrawal' (single withdrawal) and 'get_fiat_withdrawals' (fiat).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides parameter details but no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives, such as 'get_coin_withdrawal' for individual withdrawals or 'get_fiat_withdrawals' for fiat. Usage context is implied by the name and sibling list.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.